When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

Abstract

An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

Keywords

Misperceptions Misinformation Ignorance Knowledge Correction Backfire

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. We thank anonymous reviewers, the editors, and audiences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Northwestern University, and the Duke Political Science Graduate Student Colloquium for valuable feedback.

Appendix

Study 1 (WMD): News Text

Wilkes-Barre, PA, October 7, 2004 (AP)—President Bush delivered a hard-hitting speech here today that made his strategy for the remainder of the campaign crystal clear: a rousing, no-retreat defense of the Iraq war.

Bush maintained Wednesday that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” Bush said.

[Correction]

While Bush was making campaign stops in Pennsylvania, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report that concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, nor was any program to produce them under way at the time. The report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Saddam made a decision sometime in the 1990s to destroy known stockpiles of chemical weapons. Duelfer also said that inspectors destroyed the nuclear program sometime after 1991.

[All subjects]

The President travels to Ohio tomorrow for more campaign stops.

Study 1 (WMD): Dependent Variable

Immediately before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program, the ability to produce these weapons, and large stockpiles of WMD, but Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before U.S. forces arrived.

Strongly disagree [1]

Somewhat disagree [2]

Neither agree nor disagree [3]

Somewhat agree [4]

Strongly agree [5]

Study 2, Experiment 1 (WMD): News Text

[New York Times/FoxNews.com]

December 14, 2005

During a speech in Washington, DC on Wednesday, President Bush maintained that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” Bush said.

[Correction]

In 2004, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report that concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, nor was any program to produce them under way at the time.

[All subjects]

The President travels to Ohio tomorrow to give another speech about Iraq.

Study 2, Experiment 1 (WMD): Dependent Variable

Immediately before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program and large stockpiles of WMD.

Strongly disagree [1]

Somewhat disagree [2]

Neither agree nor disagree [3]

Somewhat agree [4]

Strongly agree [5]

Study 2, Experiment 2 (Tax Cuts): News Text

[New York Times/FoxNews.com]

August 6, 2005

President George W. Bush urged Congress to make permanent the tax cuts enacted during his first term and draft legislation to bolster the Social Security program, after the lawmakers return from their August break.

“The tax relief stimulated economic vitality and growth and it has helped increase revenues to the Treasury,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “The increased revenues and our spending restraint have led to good progress in reducing the federal deficit.”

The expanding economy is helping reduce the amount of money the U.S. government plans to borrow from July through September, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday. The government will borrow a net $59 billion in the current quarter, $44 billion less than it originally predicted, as a surge in tax revenue cut the forecast for the federal budget deficit.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget last month forecast a $333 billion budget gap for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, down from a record $412 billion last year.

[Correction]

However, even with the recent increases, revenues in 2005 will remain well below previous projections from the Congressional Budget Office. The major tax cut of 2001 and further cuts in each of the last three years were followed by an unprecedented three-year decline in nominal tax revenues, from $2 trillion in 2000 to $1.8 trillion in 2003. Last year, revenues rebounded slightly to $1.9 trillion. But at 16.3 percent of the gross domestic product, last year’s revenue total, measured against the size of the economy, was the lowest level since 1959.

Study 2, Experiment 2 (Tax Cuts): Dependent Variable

President Bush’s tax cuts have increased government revenue.

Strongly disagree [1]

Somewhat disagree [2]

Neither agree nor disagree [3]

Somewhat agree [4]

Strongly agree [5]

Study 2, Experiment 3 (Stem Cell Research): News Text

[New York Times/FoxNews.com]

August 10, 2004

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) yesterday slammed President Bush and promised that a Kerry administration would support the promising young field of embryonic stem cell research.

The vice presidential contender’s comments came on the third anniversary of President Bush’s televised address to the nation announcing a funding policy for the controversial research, which relies on human embryos as a source of cells.

The much-debated but still experimental field of study has become an unanticipated wedge issue in this fall’s election. Edwards’s running mate on the Democratic ticket, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), mentioned the topic in a number of speeches last week. Kerry also devoted a large chunk of the Democrats’ weekly radio address Saturday to it, saying that science should not be sacrificed for ideology.

“We’re going to lift the ban on stem cell research,” Kerry said. “We’re going to listen to our scientists and stand up for science. We’re going to say yes to knowledge, yes to discovery and yes to a new era of hope for all Americans.”

[Correction]

However, experts pointed out that Bush’s action does not limit private funding of stem cell research. He is actually the first president to allow the use of federal funds to study human embryonic stem cells, but his policy limits federal support of such research to colonies derived from embryos already destroyed by August 2001.

Baum, M. A., & Gussin, P. (2007). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science,3, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, F., Ogilvie, D. M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2005). American Roulette: The effect of reminders of death on support for George W. Bush in the 2004. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,5(1), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussin, P., & Baum, M. A. (2004). In the eye of the beholder: An experimental investigation into the foundations of the hostile media phenomenon. Paper presented at 2004 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Schweider, D., & Rich, R. F. (1998). ‘Just the Facts, Ma’am’: Political facts and public opinion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,560, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science,51(4), 996–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2005). Public more critical of press, but goodwill persists: Online newspaper readership countering print losses. Poll conducted June 8–12, 2005 and released June 26, 2005. Downloaded December 6, 2008 from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/248.pdf.

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(3), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shani, D. (2006). Knowing your colors: Can knowledge correct for partisan bias in political perceptions? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar

Sides, J., & Citrin, J.(2007). “How large the huddled masses? The causes and consequences of public misperceptions about immigrant populations.” Paper presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar